User blog:Cheetahrock63/Teawaterverse
The Teawaterverse is a set that contains a universe, a baseball, and the number 3. uhhh.... It uh... it is erm... ehh... uhhhhhhh.... Huh. See, the real question one must consider when making a page on a concept like the Teawaterverse is "Why?—Why make a page on a completely useless object?". One approach to figuring out an answer to this question is to attempt to make it more interesting in some way. One way of going about this is to add some more substance to the concept in order to develop it. Perhaps there is some interesting lore behind the Teawaterverse. Perhaps this is the result of a baseball game gone horribly wrong. Perhaps some powerful entity thought creating the Teawaterverse would be fun. Perhaps it has always existed independently of other verses. Or maybe the -verse is just a system possible due to some weird background laws of physics. Perhaps gravity or some other unknown force is holding the concepts together, leaving them bound together in a currently stable system. What about the future of the Teawaterverse? Will the system be stable forever? Will it collapse after some time? If so, will it go out with a bang or a puff? Does time even work the same around the Teawaterverse? Maybe it's a closed loop and the system just continues in an endless loop. Or maybe it's open but the Teawaterverse exhibits periodic motion. But what if the objects are all stationary? Or maybe we can attack this from a rigourous angle by formalizing the notions of "set", "universe", "baseball", and "3". What background set theory is a good idea to use? We could use naive set theory, but perhaps theories like ZFC and MK will do. Their axioms make sense and seem to be good enough for our purposes. But what if we need to assume the Continuum Hypothesis and the existence of an inaccessible cardinal when asserting Teawaterverse's existence due to the Universe's structure? What if Teawaterverse is non-well-founded? Well, perhaps there is a natural way of considering Teawaterverse that way. But what if all of that is true at the same time? What if all of that is true and false at the same time? Well, that might mean Teawaterverse is beyond the scope of classical logic. Maybe Teawaterverse only contains just its universe, its baseball and three regardless of any objects that contradict this. Perhaps the contents of the Universe, the baseball, and 3 aren't contained in the Teawaterverse as containment is nontransitive. Perhaps the Antibox is not contained within it, even though it is. Does the Teawaterverse have to be hypercosmological or just plain cosmological? All of these ways seem like totally valid ways of considering the Teawaterverse, but are they really the right thing to do when considering it? What if by trying to develop such a simple thing into some unnecessarily complicated thing, we are destroying what the concept truly is—a boring, trivial, uninteresting set and not something that would interest anyone in their right mind? How much not within the original definition do we have to assume when attempting to develop Teawaterverse? By adding more to it, are we really... subtracting from it? Does the Teawaterverse need to be more than what it really is? Of course it does... right? We're writing a V&D article, it needs to at least have some amount of substance to it! Otherwise people will delete my page and then shun me for bad writing! Then again, Transcendentem Continuum and TonyNothing don't have much going for them contentwise and writingwise. We could go the lazy route and just go "The Teawaterverse is a set that contains a universe, a baseball, and the number 3." and just call it a day. But wait... that would make us writers like AD! What if the one sentence route ends up fully adopted up by users?! Everything will devolve into anarchy! Hmmm. Maybe we could just go on AD and post the one-sentence Teawaterverse page without a need to care about the quality of our work.... Not many people would seriously judge us there.... The original question (Why make a page on a completely useless object?) will now have a somewhat clear-ish answer—because we can and just did. But, is cosmological fantasy really all about just making up things on a whim just because we can? Teawaterverse was made on a whim, is just making up similarly simple things really what cosmological fantasy can be about? Would it really be perfectly okay for cosmology sites to even have pages on Teawaterverse or similar collections? No extra unnecessary development or anything new added on to it, just an at-least-adequately written page on what the Teawaterverse is—a collection with a mere three objects in it: a universe, a baseball, and the number of objects within the humble set. What are the implications of allowing things like this onto a cosmology site? okay i'll stop Category:Blog posts